3 hours 23 minutes ago.
Jesse Perez
Nancy Cartwright, the woman famous for being the voice of Bart Simpson, could find herself eating her shorts for using the character to promote her religion – the controversial Church Of Scientology.
Audio has emerged of Cartwright’s voice in a robocall campaign promoting a Scientology event at the Church’s Hollywood center.
The problem is, she has also thrown in the mix the voice of her most popular character, Bart Simpson, but without the permission of Fox, creators of The Simpsons.
“Hey what’s happening man this is Bart Simpson….hahaha…. just kidding don’t hang up this is Nancy Cartwright. And this is a very special phone call to you. I’m now auditing on new OT (Operating Thetan Level) Seven.” the message said.
Cartwright was emphasizing that she had reached a higher echelon of the churches practice, and later promoted a talk she was giving at a special scientology event.
“It’s gonna be a blast man” Cartwright said, in the voice of Bart Simpson.
Her choice to do this could put the 51-year-old in serious violation of her contract with Fox, as the intellectual property of Bart Simpson is owned by them, not by her.
“This is not authorized by us," said Al Jean, executive producer of the Simpsons. "'The Simpsons' does not, and never has, endorsed any religion, philosophy or system of beliefs any more profound than Butterfinger bars."
Cartwright has been in the stable of high-profile Scientologists for nearly 20 years – joining in 1989, she has been a prominent advocate for the self-help group.
http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2009/01/29/Bart_Simpson_used_by_Cartwright_to_promote_Scientology
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Man held after child falls from West Gate bridge near Spotswood
Sarah Wotherspoon
January 29, 2009 09:47am
UPDATE 11.35am: A GIRL has died after allegedly being thrown from the West Gate Bridge. Her father is in police custody.
The girl, believed to be about five years old, was pulled from the water by water police close to the pumping station at Spotswood about 9.30am.
The man in custody is from Hawthorn, Assistant Commissioner Ken Lay told 3AW radio. He was arrested outside the Federal Court at 10.30am.
It is understood he had two young children with him.
The girl is being treated in the emergency department of the Royal Children's Hospital.
Witnesses told police they saw a man stop on an inbound lane near the top of the West Gate. It is believed the young child was then thrown over the edge.
He threw the child into the waters below and then drove off, they said.
Police say the vehicle was a white Toyota 4WD and the incident happened around 9.10am.
They have appealed to the public to provide any information they may have.
Paramedic team manger Trevor Weston said paramedics worked on a six-year-old girl.
"Paramedics worked for about 50 minutes at the scene and the child was then conveyed to the Royal Children's Hospital," Mr Weston said.
"Anything that involves children takes its toll on paramedics. Fortunately it's not a very frequent occurrence."
The girl was airlifted to the Royal Children's Hospital in a critical condition with massive internal injuries.
"Everyone at the scene did a fantastic job and we're very focused on doing everything they could for the child," Mr Weston said.
Ambulance Victoria was called just after 9.30am to a report of a child in the water underneath the West Gate Bridge, Ambulance Victoria spokesman Paul Bentley said.
"The child suffered fairly extensive injuries and the paramedics spent some time trying to resuscitate the child," Mr Bentley said.
"I understand the police boat was used to get the child from the water to the Yarraville side."
The homicide squad is investigating the incident and have appealed for information from the public.
Anyone with information is urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or visit website www.crimestoppers.com.au
- with Matt Johnston
More to follow
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24978703-661,00.html
January 29, 2009 09:47am
UPDATE 11.35am: A GIRL has died after allegedly being thrown from the West Gate Bridge. Her father is in police custody.
The girl, believed to be about five years old, was pulled from the water by water police close to the pumping station at Spotswood about 9.30am.
The man in custody is from Hawthorn, Assistant Commissioner Ken Lay told 3AW radio. He was arrested outside the Federal Court at 10.30am.
It is understood he had two young children with him.
The girl is being treated in the emergency department of the Royal Children's Hospital.
Witnesses told police they saw a man stop on an inbound lane near the top of the West Gate. It is believed the young child was then thrown over the edge.
He threw the child into the waters below and then drove off, they said.
Police say the vehicle was a white Toyota 4WD and the incident happened around 9.10am.
They have appealed to the public to provide any information they may have.
Paramedic team manger Trevor Weston said paramedics worked on a six-year-old girl.
"Paramedics worked for about 50 minutes at the scene and the child was then conveyed to the Royal Children's Hospital," Mr Weston said.
"Anything that involves children takes its toll on paramedics. Fortunately it's not a very frequent occurrence."
The girl was airlifted to the Royal Children's Hospital in a critical condition with massive internal injuries.
"Everyone at the scene did a fantastic job and we're very focused on doing everything they could for the child," Mr Weston said.
Ambulance Victoria was called just after 9.30am to a report of a child in the water underneath the West Gate Bridge, Ambulance Victoria spokesman Paul Bentley said.
"The child suffered fairly extensive injuries and the paramedics spent some time trying to resuscitate the child," Mr Bentley said.
"I understand the police boat was used to get the child from the water to the Yarraville side."
The homicide squad is investigating the incident and have appealed for information from the public.
Anyone with information is urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or visit website www.crimestoppers.com.au
- with Matt Johnston
More to follow
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24978703-661,00.html
Saturday, January 24, 2009
It's game on for the king of the West End musical
Marina Hyde
The Guardian, Friday 23 January 2009
One of the questions Lost in Showbiz occasionally likes to ask of certain members of the creative community is: how much money is enough? Seriously, I know you're artists and stuff, but what is the magic number of hundreds of millions at which you would reject a commercial proposal out of hand, on the grounds that this one feels a little bit more about the numbers than the art?
For Andrew Lloyd Webber, that figure would appear to be somewhere well north of the £600m at which his personal fortune is currently estimated. And frankly, thank Christ for that - because he's only gone and announced he's developing a range of video games based on his musical stage shows.
Wii Aspects of Love? I'm pre-ordering my copy today As Douglas Glen, digital director of his lordship's Really Useful Group, declares: "Now is the perfect time for us to take some of the best-known names in musical entertainment in a more interactive direction."
To this end, the firm has been in talks with several international game publishers, including EA. Motto: challenge everything - including the idea that Jesus Christ Superstar wouldn't make an awesome first person shooter. Lost in Showbiz is already dreaming up game scenarios: "You will take the role of Judas, a low level-operative in the criminalised organisation of Jesus Christ, a messianic outlaw bent on cleaning up Jerusalem by any means necessary. You must rise through the ranks of his movement and ultimately take him down - but only if you can handle the betrayal. Got a friend over? Then he needs to get his Caiaphas on. Player 2 has entered the game."
It's amazing, really, how little tweaking the West End juggernauts of yesteryear require to become the sandbox games of tomorrow. In Call of Duty: Argentina, players could choose to play Eva Peron as either Madonna or Elaine Paige, before embarking on a perilous, upwardly mobile journey through a simulated 1940s Buenos Aires landscape.
Starlight Express is even more of a gimme. What was the original stage show, if not a now embarrassingly Betamax version of today's vehicle simulation games? Naturally, one would hope that there would be some kind of special secret code you could type in, that would give an exclusive few the chance to see Mr Mistoffelees giving one to Bonnie Langford, or the Phantom of the Opera doing the Soulja Boy dance. That would be 200% gnarly.
The main thing to accept today is that Lloyd Webber is not creatively satisfied by the analogue nature of his achievements. Instead, he is constantly pushing that envelope - dare I say to the greater good of humanity as a whole?
Lost in Showbiz suggests you think of this latest expansionist dream as the Lloyd Webber project's Great Leap Forward. After all, there was a time - perhaps when the BBC was screening 13-week advertorials for his commercial ventures, such as How do You Solve a Problem Like Maria - that you probably wondered whether Andrew's exhumation could be resisted. Who was this tune-crazed homunculus, and why had he returned from the 80s to lay siege to your eardrums? Was there an alternative to attending his "Nancy School", or would failure to enrol result in your Phantom-style disfigurement? Perhaps your children cowered behind the sofa, demanding between terrified sobs to know who the sea-beast on the plastic throne was - leaving you muttering something vague about someone having to keep Michael Ball in transfats.
But that was then. Just behold Lloyd Webber 2.0: tie-less, Wii-trim, and a multi-platform inevitability. He has the stage shows; he has the films. He has the albums; he has the TV shows. He has the downloads - and now he has the gaming arm.
You can no more argue against gravity than you can against his lordship's drive to annexe the furthest corners of the entertainment landscape using only his back catalogue, until every last human has been co-opted into the chorus line of a giant, World of Warcraft-style multiplayer version of Cats, and we are finally able to leave our corporeal selves behind, joining together in a virtual karaoke version of Memory. Game over? Why, it's only just begun!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2009/jan/23/andrew-lloyd-webber
The Guardian, Friday 23 January 2009
One of the questions Lost in Showbiz occasionally likes to ask of certain members of the creative community is: how much money is enough? Seriously, I know you're artists and stuff, but what is the magic number of hundreds of millions at which you would reject a commercial proposal out of hand, on the grounds that this one feels a little bit more about the numbers than the art?
For Andrew Lloyd Webber, that figure would appear to be somewhere well north of the £600m at which his personal fortune is currently estimated. And frankly, thank Christ for that - because he's only gone and announced he's developing a range of video games based on his musical stage shows.
Wii Aspects of Love? I'm pre-ordering my copy today As Douglas Glen, digital director of his lordship's Really Useful Group, declares: "Now is the perfect time for us to take some of the best-known names in musical entertainment in a more interactive direction."
To this end, the firm has been in talks with several international game publishers, including EA. Motto: challenge everything - including the idea that Jesus Christ Superstar wouldn't make an awesome first person shooter. Lost in Showbiz is already dreaming up game scenarios: "You will take the role of Judas, a low level-operative in the criminalised organisation of Jesus Christ, a messianic outlaw bent on cleaning up Jerusalem by any means necessary. You must rise through the ranks of his movement and ultimately take him down - but only if you can handle the betrayal. Got a friend over? Then he needs to get his Caiaphas on. Player 2 has entered the game."
It's amazing, really, how little tweaking the West End juggernauts of yesteryear require to become the sandbox games of tomorrow. In Call of Duty: Argentina, players could choose to play Eva Peron as either Madonna or Elaine Paige, before embarking on a perilous, upwardly mobile journey through a simulated 1940s Buenos Aires landscape.
Starlight Express is even more of a gimme. What was the original stage show, if not a now embarrassingly Betamax version of today's vehicle simulation games? Naturally, one would hope that there would be some kind of special secret code you could type in, that would give an exclusive few the chance to see Mr Mistoffelees giving one to Bonnie Langford, or the Phantom of the Opera doing the Soulja Boy dance. That would be 200% gnarly.
The main thing to accept today is that Lloyd Webber is not creatively satisfied by the analogue nature of his achievements. Instead, he is constantly pushing that envelope - dare I say to the greater good of humanity as a whole?
Lost in Showbiz suggests you think of this latest expansionist dream as the Lloyd Webber project's Great Leap Forward. After all, there was a time - perhaps when the BBC was screening 13-week advertorials for his commercial ventures, such as How do You Solve a Problem Like Maria - that you probably wondered whether Andrew's exhumation could be resisted. Who was this tune-crazed homunculus, and why had he returned from the 80s to lay siege to your eardrums? Was there an alternative to attending his "Nancy School", or would failure to enrol result in your Phantom-style disfigurement? Perhaps your children cowered behind the sofa, demanding between terrified sobs to know who the sea-beast on the plastic throne was - leaving you muttering something vague about someone having to keep Michael Ball in transfats.
But that was then. Just behold Lloyd Webber 2.0: tie-less, Wii-trim, and a multi-platform inevitability. He has the stage shows; he has the films. He has the albums; he has the TV shows. He has the downloads - and now he has the gaming arm.
You can no more argue against gravity than you can against his lordship's drive to annexe the furthest corners of the entertainment landscape using only his back catalogue, until every last human has been co-opted into the chorus line of a giant, World of Warcraft-style multiplayer version of Cats, and we are finally able to leave our corporeal selves behind, joining together in a virtual karaoke version of Memory. Game over? Why, it's only just begun!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2009/jan/23/andrew-lloyd-webber
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Barack Obama to end US army's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy towards gays
President-Elect Barack Obama will end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards gays in the military as part of moves to sweep away remnants of the Bush era.
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 6:15AM GMT 15 Jan 2009
The move is expected to be among a series of symbolic changes he will push through quickly to stamp his mark on the presidency.
He is also expected to reverse several controversial executive Bush decisions within days of taking office next week.
Mr Obama has committed to closing the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay and will formally ban all interrogative techniques that could be described as torture, such as waterboarding.
It is expected that he will also reverse Mr Bush's orders restricting the distribution of funds for stem cell research and to overseas groups that offer abortion counselling.
The change of policy on homosexuality will allow gays to serve openly in all branches of the armed forces.
Though a timeline was not put on the reversal of the policy, Robert Gibbs, who becomes Mr Obama's press secretary next week, was unequivocal that it would happen.
When questioned about whether the policy would change on the Obama transition website, he wrote: "You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes'."
Mr Obama opposed the policy during the campaign, but since his election has made statements that gay pressure groups interpreted as lukewarm commitments.
The issue became a distraction in the early days of Bill Clinton's presidency. He tried to push through reform that would have allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly but had to compromise with the "don't ask, don't tell" solution, which has been maintained by the Bush administration.
Although introduced before he came to power, Mr Bush's refusal to change the "don't ask, don't tell" policy angered many in America.
There is now however much wider public support for removing any restrictions on male and female gay personnel. Colin Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is among influential figures who have called for the policy to be re-evaluated.
During his campaign Mr Obama often spoke out against what he called Bush's abuse of executive authority.
"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution," he said in 2007.
Russ Feingold, the Democratic Senator for Wisconsin, a strong critic of Mr Bush’s accumulation of executive power, said he had been informed by Mr Obama’s transition staff the records of past presidents might also be made more available.
He said the incoming president would support a bill he is proposing to make public some opinions from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which issued some of the most controversial extensions of presidential power in the Bush era.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4241873/Barack-Obama-to-end-US-armys-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy-towards-gays.html
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 6:15AM GMT 15 Jan 2009
The move is expected to be among a series of symbolic changes he will push through quickly to stamp his mark on the presidency.
He is also expected to reverse several controversial executive Bush decisions within days of taking office next week.
Mr Obama has committed to closing the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay and will formally ban all interrogative techniques that could be described as torture, such as waterboarding.
It is expected that he will also reverse Mr Bush's orders restricting the distribution of funds for stem cell research and to overseas groups that offer abortion counselling.
The change of policy on homosexuality will allow gays to serve openly in all branches of the armed forces.
Though a timeline was not put on the reversal of the policy, Robert Gibbs, who becomes Mr Obama's press secretary next week, was unequivocal that it would happen.
When questioned about whether the policy would change on the Obama transition website, he wrote: "You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes'."
Mr Obama opposed the policy during the campaign, but since his election has made statements that gay pressure groups interpreted as lukewarm commitments.
The issue became a distraction in the early days of Bill Clinton's presidency. He tried to push through reform that would have allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly but had to compromise with the "don't ask, don't tell" solution, which has been maintained by the Bush administration.
Although introduced before he came to power, Mr Bush's refusal to change the "don't ask, don't tell" policy angered many in America.
There is now however much wider public support for removing any restrictions on male and female gay personnel. Colin Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is among influential figures who have called for the policy to be re-evaluated.
During his campaign Mr Obama often spoke out against what he called Bush's abuse of executive authority.
"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution," he said in 2007.
Russ Feingold, the Democratic Senator for Wisconsin, a strong critic of Mr Bush’s accumulation of executive power, said he had been informed by Mr Obama’s transition staff the records of past presidents might also be made more available.
He said the incoming president would support a bill he is proposing to make public some opinions from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which issued some of the most controversial extensions of presidential power in the Bush era.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4241873/Barack-Obama-to-end-US-armys-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy-towards-gays.html
Monday, January 19, 2009
Roberta's new man 'a killer'
13:00 AEST
Sun Jan 18 2009
Roberta Williams's new boyfriend was reportedly involved in the brutal killing of a 14-year-old boy.
Robert Carpenter was jailed for seven years over the 1997 killing of Joel Russell, the Sunday Herald Sun reported.
Carpenter — who is apparently dating Williams, the ex-wife of underworld killer Carl — was part of a gang of six who tied up and bashed the teenager before leaving his body in the Yarra River.
The boy's body was weighed down and bound in electrical cord, and his injuries included a broken back, broken ribs and a ruptured kidney.
Carpenter's gang wrongly attacked Joel Russell because they believed he was behind the robbery of their leader Lance Franklin's house.
The teen's twin sister killed herself several months later, citing the boy's death as a reason in her suicide note.
Williams claimed yesterday she did not know of her boyfriend's criminal past, the report said.
"I've got no idea what you're talking about," she was quoted as saying.
Williams appeared in court last week while attending her son's hearing on theft and burglary charges.
Tye Stephens, 22, was remanded in custody until April, accused of a four-month crime spree that netted almost $300,000 in cash and goods.
Mother-of-four Williams has previously pledged to sever her links to Melbourne's underworld.
But earlier this month she hurled insults at gangland lawyer and former friend Zoe Garde-Wilson.
"I made a promise to her, when I see her I am going to hurt her. I tell you, I would like to give her a nice head-butt," Williams reportedly said.
Williams's ex-husband, underworld figure Carl Williams, was sentenced last year to a minimum of 35 years in jail for the murders of three underworld rivals.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/720154/robertas-new-man-a-killer
HE GOT 7 YEARS FOR BEING INVOLVED IN A BRUTAL MURDER OF A 14 YEAR OLD!!!! 7 YEARS!!!! AND THE SISTER COMMITTED SUICIDE!!! WHY THE FUCK THE WHOLE FAMILY HASN'T COMMITTED SUICIDE OR SHOT THE FUCKING BASTARD IS BEYOND ME!!! HE GOT 7 YEARS WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE GOT LIFE!!! THIS IS A FUCKING FARCE!!! FUCKING JUSTICE SYSTEM!!!
Sun Jan 18 2009
Roberta Williams's new boyfriend was reportedly involved in the brutal killing of a 14-year-old boy.
Robert Carpenter was jailed for seven years over the 1997 killing of Joel Russell, the Sunday Herald Sun reported.
Carpenter — who is apparently dating Williams, the ex-wife of underworld killer Carl — was part of a gang of six who tied up and bashed the teenager before leaving his body in the Yarra River.
The boy's body was weighed down and bound in electrical cord, and his injuries included a broken back, broken ribs and a ruptured kidney.
Carpenter's gang wrongly attacked Joel Russell because they believed he was behind the robbery of their leader Lance Franklin's house.
The teen's twin sister killed herself several months later, citing the boy's death as a reason in her suicide note.
Williams claimed yesterday she did not know of her boyfriend's criminal past, the report said.
"I've got no idea what you're talking about," she was quoted as saying.
Williams appeared in court last week while attending her son's hearing on theft and burglary charges.
Tye Stephens, 22, was remanded in custody until April, accused of a four-month crime spree that netted almost $300,000 in cash and goods.
Mother-of-four Williams has previously pledged to sever her links to Melbourne's underworld.
But earlier this month she hurled insults at gangland lawyer and former friend Zoe Garde-Wilson.
"I made a promise to her, when I see her I am going to hurt her. I tell you, I would like to give her a nice head-butt," Williams reportedly said.
Williams's ex-husband, underworld figure Carl Williams, was sentenced last year to a minimum of 35 years in jail for the murders of three underworld rivals.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/720154/robertas-new-man-a-killer
HE GOT 7 YEARS FOR BEING INVOLVED IN A BRUTAL MURDER OF A 14 YEAR OLD!!!! 7 YEARS!!!! AND THE SISTER COMMITTED SUICIDE!!! WHY THE FUCK THE WHOLE FAMILY HASN'T COMMITTED SUICIDE OR SHOT THE FUCKING BASTARD IS BEYOND ME!!! HE GOT 7 YEARS WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE GOT LIFE!!! THIS IS A FUCKING FARCE!!! FUCKING JUSTICE SYSTEM!!!
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Yes George, you served your master well
14.01.2009
Source: Pravda.Ru
Now George it is over. Your Faustian deal gave you eight years of illegal and undeserved power.
And did you make the most of it! You stole elections without hesitation, you lied without compunction, you started illegal wars without any consideration for international law, you shredded the Constitution without any respect for the check-and-balance system, you opened up concentration camps without any concern for the rule of law, and you maimed, tortured, and murdered without any regard for fundamental human rights.
You fiddled while New Orleans floundered, while your cronies in the oil industry drove prices through the roof, while war profiteers ruthlessly plundered Iraq, and while the economy suffered its worst decline in decades.
Yes George, you served your master well.
And he served you. The suffering you inflicted upon others never touched you—aside from a pair of poorly aimed shoes. You were never impeached, prosecuted or even censured as a war criminal. And the fact that you intend—as you stated in your final press briefing—to spend your days lounging on the beach, when you should be spending them in a prison cell, adds just another name to the historical list of evildoers who have been rewarded for their crimes.
Many critics claim that your arrogance, your ineptitude, and your self-serving distortions of the Christian faith are to blame for the eight-year nightmare you thrust upon the world. They say that history will recognize this, and perhaps not judge you so harshly.
If that be so then history will be a lie, because it will fail to recognize what millions of Americans also failed to recognize before you stole your first election: that you and your cronies are pure and simply evil.
One can vilify Hugo Chavez and the Mayan Indians all they want for openly recognizing this evil. The truth is that those Americans who refused to recognize your evil only confirmed that classic line from the movie THE USUAL SUSPECTS: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”
Many Americans shared your arrogance, and it blinded them to your hypocrisy. “America,” they claimed, “was better than those petty dictatorships in third-world countries that loathe democracy, freedom and human rights.” And thus they allowed you to turn America into the very beast they claimed to abhor.
You condemned the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Yes, he was an evil man. Yes, he placed people in illegal detention, used torture, rigged elections, and killed for political reasons. Yet, at the end of the day, his legacy is not much different from yours. So can it truly be called justice when he paid for his crimes with his life, while you “pay” for yours lounging about in a beachside mansion?
During your illegal occupancy of the White House, you also exposed the corporate-controlled media for what they really are, profit-driven machines dealing in sensationalism and superficiality so they don’t have to cover actual news.
Today these media unabashedly refer to the conflict in Iraq as an “unpopular war.” But just a few years ago they were the primary cheerleaders fueling this war, silencing anti-war voices, and even firing reporters who questioned your motives for invading Iraq.
Your seventy-five percent disapproval rating today masks the fact that just a few years ago your approval rating stood at eighty-six percent, and at pro-war rallies throughout America participants were speaking of you and your fellow war criminals as if you were deities. What a different world it would now be if this eighty-six percent had recognized the depths of your evil before the coup of 2000, instead of when it was too late.
I wish there was a silver lining to the clouds that shrouded America for the past eight years. One could argue that beginning the new millennium in the grip of your evil means there is no place to go for the next nine hundred and ninety-two years but up. But this obscures the fact that those who fail to acknowledge evil at its inception are forever destined to be manipulated by mendacious, venal, megalomaniacal people who, to paraphrase Jesus, are willing to lose their souls to gain the world.
But for you George it is over. Satan has fulfilled his end of the bargain. One day you and your cronies will be obligated to fulfill yours. Now all that is left to ask is this: Was the prospect of making reservations in history worth making reservations in hell?
So good riddance to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, John Yoo, Karl Rove and the other architects of evil too numerous to mention. May all the pain, suffering, torture and injustice you and your cronies inflicted upon others ultimately be visited upon you—for all eternity.
Justice demands nothing less.
David R. Hoffman
Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/14-01-2009/106942-george_bush_goodbye-0
Source: Pravda.Ru
Now George it is over. Your Faustian deal gave you eight years of illegal and undeserved power.
And did you make the most of it! You stole elections without hesitation, you lied without compunction, you started illegal wars without any consideration for international law, you shredded the Constitution without any respect for the check-and-balance system, you opened up concentration camps without any concern for the rule of law, and you maimed, tortured, and murdered without any regard for fundamental human rights.
You fiddled while New Orleans floundered, while your cronies in the oil industry drove prices through the roof, while war profiteers ruthlessly plundered Iraq, and while the economy suffered its worst decline in decades.
Yes George, you served your master well.
And he served you. The suffering you inflicted upon others never touched you—aside from a pair of poorly aimed shoes. You were never impeached, prosecuted or even censured as a war criminal. And the fact that you intend—as you stated in your final press briefing—to spend your days lounging on the beach, when you should be spending them in a prison cell, adds just another name to the historical list of evildoers who have been rewarded for their crimes.
Many critics claim that your arrogance, your ineptitude, and your self-serving distortions of the Christian faith are to blame for the eight-year nightmare you thrust upon the world. They say that history will recognize this, and perhaps not judge you so harshly.
If that be so then history will be a lie, because it will fail to recognize what millions of Americans also failed to recognize before you stole your first election: that you and your cronies are pure and simply evil.
One can vilify Hugo Chavez and the Mayan Indians all they want for openly recognizing this evil. The truth is that those Americans who refused to recognize your evil only confirmed that classic line from the movie THE USUAL SUSPECTS: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”
Many Americans shared your arrogance, and it blinded them to your hypocrisy. “America,” they claimed, “was better than those petty dictatorships in third-world countries that loathe democracy, freedom and human rights.” And thus they allowed you to turn America into the very beast they claimed to abhor.
You condemned the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Yes, he was an evil man. Yes, he placed people in illegal detention, used torture, rigged elections, and killed for political reasons. Yet, at the end of the day, his legacy is not much different from yours. So can it truly be called justice when he paid for his crimes with his life, while you “pay” for yours lounging about in a beachside mansion?
During your illegal occupancy of the White House, you also exposed the corporate-controlled media for what they really are, profit-driven machines dealing in sensationalism and superficiality so they don’t have to cover actual news.
Today these media unabashedly refer to the conflict in Iraq as an “unpopular war.” But just a few years ago they were the primary cheerleaders fueling this war, silencing anti-war voices, and even firing reporters who questioned your motives for invading Iraq.
Your seventy-five percent disapproval rating today masks the fact that just a few years ago your approval rating stood at eighty-six percent, and at pro-war rallies throughout America participants were speaking of you and your fellow war criminals as if you were deities. What a different world it would now be if this eighty-six percent had recognized the depths of your evil before the coup of 2000, instead of when it was too late.
I wish there was a silver lining to the clouds that shrouded America for the past eight years. One could argue that beginning the new millennium in the grip of your evil means there is no place to go for the next nine hundred and ninety-two years but up. But this obscures the fact that those who fail to acknowledge evil at its inception are forever destined to be manipulated by mendacious, venal, megalomaniacal people who, to paraphrase Jesus, are willing to lose their souls to gain the world.
But for you George it is over. Satan has fulfilled his end of the bargain. One day you and your cronies will be obligated to fulfill yours. Now all that is left to ask is this: Was the prospect of making reservations in history worth making reservations in hell?
So good riddance to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, John Yoo, Karl Rove and the other architects of evil too numerous to mention. May all the pain, suffering, torture and injustice you and your cronies inflicted upon others ultimately be visited upon you—for all eternity.
Justice demands nothing less.
David R. Hoffman
Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/14-01-2009/106942-george_bush_goodbye-0
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Dispute over what rang the bell on High School Musical
Matthew Clayfield and Lauren Wilson
January 10, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THE failure of a stage version of Disney's High School Musical may have been blamed on the global financial crisis, but some in the musical theatre industry have suggested it may just be that the show doesn't work.
The show's Sydney season will close a month earlier than scheduled and a planned national tour has also been canned. In a statement released earlier this week, co-producers Kevin Jacobsen and Tim McFarlane put the show's failure down to poorer than anticipated ticket sales, claiming it had been "a difficult time for all families".
But theatrical producer John Frost, who co-produced both Wicked and the latest incarnation of Phantom of the Opera, said the global financial crisis had not caused other shows to close, including his own.
"With Wicked, the crisis hasn't touched us at all," he told The Australian yesterday.
He said the show had sold more than 400,000 tickets since opening in Melbourne in July last year, while the Perth and Adelaide seasons of Phantom of the Opera were set to exceed targets.
Frost said while it was possible that the target audience for High School Musical -- families with young children -- might have been hit harder by the economic downturn than those attending his shows, it was also possible the show simply did not work.
"These things happen," he said. "You can open one show and get great reviews and terrific word of mouth and then you can open another and it doesn't work and it fails. I think that's probably what's happened."
He said musicals such as Billy Elliot and The Rocky Horror Show, neither of which he was involved with, had also weathered the crisis well. A spokesman for the producers of Billy Elliot confirmed the show was going "great guns", winning seven Helpmann Awards for its Sydney season and selling 120,000 advance tickets in Melbourne.
Filing through the stage door at Sydney's Capitol Theatre last night, members of High School Musical's young cast said they were "devastated" by the news. For many in the group, some of whom are as young as 18, their first professional job in the theatre has come to an unexpectedly abrupt halt.
One female cast member, who asked not to be named, was disappointed but reflective. "It's the nature of the business, right?" she said.
Mr McFarlane has confirmed that the cast, which was informed of the decision on Thursday night, will have their contracts met in full.
He and Mr Jacobsen earlier likened the show's closure to those of numerous Broadway productions this month. Nine shows closed on Broadway last weekend, with some predicting the curtain would fall on no fewer than 16 by the end of February.
Live Performance Australia chief executive Evelyn Richardson said live performance was a cyclical industry.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24893608-15089,00.html
January 10, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THE failure of a stage version of Disney's High School Musical may have been blamed on the global financial crisis, but some in the musical theatre industry have suggested it may just be that the show doesn't work.
The show's Sydney season will close a month earlier than scheduled and a planned national tour has also been canned. In a statement released earlier this week, co-producers Kevin Jacobsen and Tim McFarlane put the show's failure down to poorer than anticipated ticket sales, claiming it had been "a difficult time for all families".
But theatrical producer John Frost, who co-produced both Wicked and the latest incarnation of Phantom of the Opera, said the global financial crisis had not caused other shows to close, including his own.
"With Wicked, the crisis hasn't touched us at all," he told The Australian yesterday.
He said the show had sold more than 400,000 tickets since opening in Melbourne in July last year, while the Perth and Adelaide seasons of Phantom of the Opera were set to exceed targets.
Frost said while it was possible that the target audience for High School Musical -- families with young children -- might have been hit harder by the economic downturn than those attending his shows, it was also possible the show simply did not work.
"These things happen," he said. "You can open one show and get great reviews and terrific word of mouth and then you can open another and it doesn't work and it fails. I think that's probably what's happened."
He said musicals such as Billy Elliot and The Rocky Horror Show, neither of which he was involved with, had also weathered the crisis well. A spokesman for the producers of Billy Elliot confirmed the show was going "great guns", winning seven Helpmann Awards for its Sydney season and selling 120,000 advance tickets in Melbourne.
Filing through the stage door at Sydney's Capitol Theatre last night, members of High School Musical's young cast said they were "devastated" by the news. For many in the group, some of whom are as young as 18, their first professional job in the theatre has come to an unexpectedly abrupt halt.
One female cast member, who asked not to be named, was disappointed but reflective. "It's the nature of the business, right?" she said.
Mr McFarlane has confirmed that the cast, which was informed of the decision on Thursday night, will have their contracts met in full.
He and Mr Jacobsen earlier likened the show's closure to those of numerous Broadway productions this month. Nine shows closed on Broadway last weekend, with some predicting the curtain would fall on no fewer than 16 by the end of February.
Live Performance Australia chief executive Evelyn Richardson said live performance was a cyclical industry.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24893608-15089,00.html
Sunday, January 4, 2009
An interview with Tom O'Horgan
Director of the original Broadway production of JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR.
I got sent this today.
How did you first get involved?
"I was actually one of the first directors that were interviewed for the show. I'd had great success Off-Broadway, and on Broadway with Hair, it was a hot period for me. They had another director signed, but the authors didn't have much confidence in him and a bunch of people were being sought out (no disrespect to him by the way; my process wouldn't have been so smooth if he hadn't paved the way). In early August of '71, the director they had got in a bad wreck and they called me in. They were very desperate, and my agent was able to get a lot of things that I'm sure they wouldn't have given to me now--complete creative control, conceptual credit (which got me some royalties later on in my lean years)... Of course, I didn't know I was getting into a remake of A Night at the Opera. "
What did you do to acclimatize yourself to the show?
"I'd worked with all of the creative team before, both on and off Broadway, so I had no problem jumping in with them. I got together with the set designer [Robin Wagner] and we flew out to Chicago, my hometown, to see the concert, which was on tour at the time, so I could hear the music and get a feel for it. For a first opera it was a marvelous work, but I could not believe my eyes when we arrived at the outdoor stadium and glimpsed twenty thousand people clamoring for seats. Not just hippies or freaks but scrubbed up Middle American families. We knew then we were into something of rather large sociological importance--a theater piece that might possibly bring people into the theater that would never, under any circumstances, consider entering one.
What seemed important was to find a theatrical point of view that was seductive for this new audience and compatible with the work. At the same time we knew full well how impossible it was to deal with everyone's piece of the true cross. Critics entered my mind, too. I knew their penchant for reviewing subject matter instead of plays. People were bound to say, 'How dare you tamper with Jesus!' and 'How can you make money off Christ?' The laugh, when you stop to think, is through time, people have made money out of Jesus.
After I tried working with the choreographer, we just didn't gel, and I had my own ideas for the dances anyway, so he was sacked. (Laughs) He went back to a revival of West Side Story or something. (It was later determined this was an in-joke, as Grover Dale was a member of the original WSS cast and the choreographer mentioned here.--ed.)"
Did you have any sway with casting?
"Oh, I definitely wanted Ben Vereen for Judas. I'd worked with him before, and I knew it would be a good role. I actually had enough balls that I called him and flat out offered him the role. I told him to get on a plane for New York for the final day of auditions, and 'don't thank me -- just sing the shit out of it!' I fought for him. And he did an excellent job."
On Ted Neeley:
"I was very happy for Teddie when he got into the film. He is perfect for the part. You really have to see him perform Jesus to know what I'm talking about. There was the difference between night and day in his interpretation and Jeff [Fenholt]'s. Ted brings a certain power and majesty to the role -- he entirely captivated the audience whenever he stepped in for Jeff. Ted's a great talent -- he did a lot for the movie, and hopefully, the movie did a lot for him."
On Turning an Album into a Play:
"[JCS] had a very theatrical concept, but it just was not very theatrically constructed. When I first attacked the piece with Andrew [Lloyd Webber], he said he would write some other numbers that would help make it flow a little better. But he didn't. The authors told me they imagined a rather intimate opera. This is, of course, somewhat difficult to manage with forty-two people on stage with processions, trials, and pageants required. So we just had to create visual things that would work with the music and make it understandable. Add to this that I only had a few weeks to pull it together, and I don't know how I made it to opening night, honestly. (Laughs) Everything just fell into place. I had a lot of good help. We came a long way. I'm never really ready to open a show until three days after it opens, I continue making changes up till the very last minute, so I was surprised I did it, but by God I did. Honestly, though, I can't remember another show where I was so glad it was over."
Where did your whole concept for the show come from? Did critics' comments on it faze you at all?
"If you think that when I direct a show I get some sort of divine inspiration, well, that's not the way it works. You try something because you've done everything else and it didn't work out. Directing is no haphazard thing. Rather it is a complex series of challenges and compromises. Someone asked me if I minded critics calling me cheap, decadent, sensationalistic, gimmicky, vulgar, over inflated, and...I think megalomaniacal...anyway; I believe I said I don't read reviews very much! (Laughs)
But it's true. No one is more critical of me than I am, anyway. And besides, most theater critics were and are writing about something they know nothing about. I rarely read what they have to say--whether it's good or bad. I really don't care what they have to write about my work. Walter Kerr was the only critic I respected. He was, at least, experienced in the theater. But Kerr never liked anything I did.
Critics didn't know--and didn't want to know--where I was going. They elected me as their antagonist. Theater critics should try to learn a little something about their subject before they attempt to give the definitive word. I don't know where the papers and magazines get such inept reviewers--most of them have to be writers who graduated from obits. There was one critic in New York--well, I wonder if he'd ever been on a stage, or even backstage, for that matter. They did not understand the structure of the theater; they were still back there with Oklahoma and My Fair Lady.
One of John Simon's bitchy remarks in his review was comparing me to Busby Berkeley. I guess if he knew that I've always loved Berkeley's work, he probably wouldn't have used it. Movies--especially Berkeley's--have dazzled me since I was a child. And I've always wanted to bring cinematic fluidity to my stages. Going to the theater was always an extremely boring experience for me. It was filled with silly formalities, conformities. I wanted to change that--that is one of the reasons my plays look the way they do.
I was fair game after Hair. It got mixed reviews, and you couldn't keep the audiences away. Tom Paine was well received, and we had to fight for our lives. Every influential critic, with the exception of Doug Watts of the News, bombed Superstar. It was all very crazy--very unpredictable. We were sold out for months, and scalpers were making a mint. Audiences ate the show up with standing ovations and wild applause. If Jesus Christ Superstar proved nothing else, it was and is a monument to the fact that theater of the 40s is dead!"
What was with the sets, for crying out loud? (Of course I didn't phrase the question quite like that--ed.)
"Remember what I said about divine inspiration? As we sifted through all the possibilities for Superstar over and over and over again, we knew that before we finished, we would probably have tried them all. All the popular and attractive ideas were considered. There was nothing in Rice and [Lloyd] Webber's highly romantic score that would support an even slightly realistic presentation, nor could a super-pop-crucifying-Christ-on-a-hypodermic-needle-hallucination be sustained for more than a few moments during the opera.
We decided on a mystical, metaphysical approach. I had gone to the Museum of Natural History, and there was a whole thing about insects when I was in the process of putting [Superstar] together. So I thought, maybe I would do this piece as if a further civilization of evolved insects looked back at this primitive society's myth and decided to make a version of it. I'd just seen The Hellstrom Chronicle and I wanted it to reflect an allegory of nature, if you will, in both sets and costumes; a greatly enlarged microscopic world with costumes inspired by insects. The general effect was drawn from the paintings of O'Keefe, Magritte, and perhaps Blake and some illustrations from The Encyclopedia of the Mind, Body, and Health. I don't think anybody ever got that. (Neither do I.--ed.) But if you look at the costumes, for instance, Judas is resurrected as a butterfly, and Christ comes up out of the ground in a chrysalis, and it breaks open and becomes a great moth."
Why do you think people protested the play more than the record?
"A staged musical, unlike a record, exists in a specific location, so the show was more easily targeted than a sound recording. A lot of people who wouldn't even look at or come to see Jesus Christ Superstar were offended that it existed, so there was always somebody picketing in front of the theater. On the other hand, people who bought records wanted to buy the records, but it wasn't being foisted off on anybody."
What about people who thought the show was a letdown compared to the record?
"No matter what you do, you are bound to offend someone with this show. Look at the subject--and it wasn't me that rewrote the Bible--and there is no way to please the millions who have bought the record and know it inside and out. You could do Superstar in 70s dress, project into the 80's, 90's, the 3000's, or use heavy 50s vinyl motorcycle or use a Mick Jaggeresque Jesus, but the opera cannot support that--nor does it support a realistic treatment. Actually, the safe way to do Jesus Christ Superstar is not to do it at all!"
On the show's sound amplification problems:
"During rehearsals, I tried everything I could think of to balance the sound. Any problems were hardly our fault. Among the other things I inherited when I entered the production picture was the Mark Hellinger Theater, which is somewhat related to a dirigible hangar where sound is concerned.
First, I attempted to cover the orchestra. The conductor had a plastic bowl over him--the idea was to enclose the orchestra and make the pit into a recording studio. But everybody hated it, so they ripped it open before we opened. I asked Stiggie (Robert Stigwood--ed.) for help. He designed a sound system especially for the show. It was top-notch, state-of-the-art...and still didn't work. What it did was take out notes that were over amplified. As a consequence, we ended up with a bland, nothing sound. That went on for two or three weeks of previews. Eventually we all threw up our hands and got another sound guy to put in another sound system, which worked better but was still not right.
And microphones - oh God, microphones. Back when I was doing Superstar and Hair, wireless mikes were almost unknown. We might have used one or two, but everyone else had hand mikes with long cords. As a consequence, my choreography had to be done very carefully. Otherwise, you would weave a basket, which was often the case."
What are your feelings about Andrew Lloyd Webber's comments on your concept?
"The show carried the label 'conceived and directed by Tom O'Horgan,' and I tried to respect it and at the same time involve, not antagonize audiences with magical passages of ideas and feelings. They can complain, I don't care, but it's funny that they say it didn't reflect their ideas when no one came around to offer suggestions, and they never said anything but, 'Nice going; thanks, man, thanks!' The authors took off after rehearsals began and didn't return until we were in previews. This, of course, could be considered a plus factor hovering over their shoulders. It was my show, but when Tim and Andrew were here, the three of us would sit in the mezzanine of the Hellinger and rap while I conducted rehearsals. Whenever they offered suggestions, I would try them out, and some of these were incorporated into the production, and some were not.
That was posted on JCS Zone
I got sent this today.
How did you first get involved?
"I was actually one of the first directors that were interviewed for the show. I'd had great success Off-Broadway, and on Broadway with Hair, it was a hot period for me. They had another director signed, but the authors didn't have much confidence in him and a bunch of people were being sought out (no disrespect to him by the way; my process wouldn't have been so smooth if he hadn't paved the way). In early August of '71, the director they had got in a bad wreck and they called me in. They were very desperate, and my agent was able to get a lot of things that I'm sure they wouldn't have given to me now--complete creative control, conceptual credit (which got me some royalties later on in my lean years)... Of course, I didn't know I was getting into a remake of A Night at the Opera. "
What did you do to acclimatize yourself to the show?
"I'd worked with all of the creative team before, both on and off Broadway, so I had no problem jumping in with them. I got together with the set designer [Robin Wagner] and we flew out to Chicago, my hometown, to see the concert, which was on tour at the time, so I could hear the music and get a feel for it. For a first opera it was a marvelous work, but I could not believe my eyes when we arrived at the outdoor stadium and glimpsed twenty thousand people clamoring for seats. Not just hippies or freaks but scrubbed up Middle American families. We knew then we were into something of rather large sociological importance--a theater piece that might possibly bring people into the theater that would never, under any circumstances, consider entering one.
What seemed important was to find a theatrical point of view that was seductive for this new audience and compatible with the work. At the same time we knew full well how impossible it was to deal with everyone's piece of the true cross. Critics entered my mind, too. I knew their penchant for reviewing subject matter instead of plays. People were bound to say, 'How dare you tamper with Jesus!' and 'How can you make money off Christ?' The laugh, when you stop to think, is through time, people have made money out of Jesus.
After I tried working with the choreographer, we just didn't gel, and I had my own ideas for the dances anyway, so he was sacked. (Laughs) He went back to a revival of West Side Story or something. (It was later determined this was an in-joke, as Grover Dale was a member of the original WSS cast and the choreographer mentioned here.--ed.)"
Did you have any sway with casting?
"Oh, I definitely wanted Ben Vereen for Judas. I'd worked with him before, and I knew it would be a good role. I actually had enough balls that I called him and flat out offered him the role. I told him to get on a plane for New York for the final day of auditions, and 'don't thank me -- just sing the shit out of it!' I fought for him. And he did an excellent job."
On Ted Neeley:
"I was very happy for Teddie when he got into the film. He is perfect for the part. You really have to see him perform Jesus to know what I'm talking about. There was the difference between night and day in his interpretation and Jeff [Fenholt]'s. Ted brings a certain power and majesty to the role -- he entirely captivated the audience whenever he stepped in for Jeff. Ted's a great talent -- he did a lot for the movie, and hopefully, the movie did a lot for him."
On Turning an Album into a Play:
"[JCS] had a very theatrical concept, but it just was not very theatrically constructed. When I first attacked the piece with Andrew [Lloyd Webber], he said he would write some other numbers that would help make it flow a little better. But he didn't. The authors told me they imagined a rather intimate opera. This is, of course, somewhat difficult to manage with forty-two people on stage with processions, trials, and pageants required. So we just had to create visual things that would work with the music and make it understandable. Add to this that I only had a few weeks to pull it together, and I don't know how I made it to opening night, honestly. (Laughs) Everything just fell into place. I had a lot of good help. We came a long way. I'm never really ready to open a show until three days after it opens, I continue making changes up till the very last minute, so I was surprised I did it, but by God I did. Honestly, though, I can't remember another show where I was so glad it was over."
Where did your whole concept for the show come from? Did critics' comments on it faze you at all?
"If you think that when I direct a show I get some sort of divine inspiration, well, that's not the way it works. You try something because you've done everything else and it didn't work out. Directing is no haphazard thing. Rather it is a complex series of challenges and compromises. Someone asked me if I minded critics calling me cheap, decadent, sensationalistic, gimmicky, vulgar, over inflated, and...I think megalomaniacal...anyway; I believe I said I don't read reviews very much! (Laughs)
But it's true. No one is more critical of me than I am, anyway. And besides, most theater critics were and are writing about something they know nothing about. I rarely read what they have to say--whether it's good or bad. I really don't care what they have to write about my work. Walter Kerr was the only critic I respected. He was, at least, experienced in the theater. But Kerr never liked anything I did.
Critics didn't know--and didn't want to know--where I was going. They elected me as their antagonist. Theater critics should try to learn a little something about their subject before they attempt to give the definitive word. I don't know where the papers and magazines get such inept reviewers--most of them have to be writers who graduated from obits. There was one critic in New York--well, I wonder if he'd ever been on a stage, or even backstage, for that matter. They did not understand the structure of the theater; they were still back there with Oklahoma and My Fair Lady.
One of John Simon's bitchy remarks in his review was comparing me to Busby Berkeley. I guess if he knew that I've always loved Berkeley's work, he probably wouldn't have used it. Movies--especially Berkeley's--have dazzled me since I was a child. And I've always wanted to bring cinematic fluidity to my stages. Going to the theater was always an extremely boring experience for me. It was filled with silly formalities, conformities. I wanted to change that--that is one of the reasons my plays look the way they do.
I was fair game after Hair. It got mixed reviews, and you couldn't keep the audiences away. Tom Paine was well received, and we had to fight for our lives. Every influential critic, with the exception of Doug Watts of the News, bombed Superstar. It was all very crazy--very unpredictable. We were sold out for months, and scalpers were making a mint. Audiences ate the show up with standing ovations and wild applause. If Jesus Christ Superstar proved nothing else, it was and is a monument to the fact that theater of the 40s is dead!"
What was with the sets, for crying out loud? (Of course I didn't phrase the question quite like that--ed.)
"Remember what I said about divine inspiration? As we sifted through all the possibilities for Superstar over and over and over again, we knew that before we finished, we would probably have tried them all. All the popular and attractive ideas were considered. There was nothing in Rice and [Lloyd] Webber's highly romantic score that would support an even slightly realistic presentation, nor could a super-pop-crucifying-Christ-on-a-hypodermic-needle-hallucination be sustained for more than a few moments during the opera.
We decided on a mystical, metaphysical approach. I had gone to the Museum of Natural History, and there was a whole thing about insects when I was in the process of putting [Superstar] together. So I thought, maybe I would do this piece as if a further civilization of evolved insects looked back at this primitive society's myth and decided to make a version of it. I'd just seen The Hellstrom Chronicle and I wanted it to reflect an allegory of nature, if you will, in both sets and costumes; a greatly enlarged microscopic world with costumes inspired by insects. The general effect was drawn from the paintings of O'Keefe, Magritte, and perhaps Blake and some illustrations from The Encyclopedia of the Mind, Body, and Health. I don't think anybody ever got that. (Neither do I.--ed.) But if you look at the costumes, for instance, Judas is resurrected as a butterfly, and Christ comes up out of the ground in a chrysalis, and it breaks open and becomes a great moth."
Why do you think people protested the play more than the record?
"A staged musical, unlike a record, exists in a specific location, so the show was more easily targeted than a sound recording. A lot of people who wouldn't even look at or come to see Jesus Christ Superstar were offended that it existed, so there was always somebody picketing in front of the theater. On the other hand, people who bought records wanted to buy the records, but it wasn't being foisted off on anybody."
What about people who thought the show was a letdown compared to the record?
"No matter what you do, you are bound to offend someone with this show. Look at the subject--and it wasn't me that rewrote the Bible--and there is no way to please the millions who have bought the record and know it inside and out. You could do Superstar in 70s dress, project into the 80's, 90's, the 3000's, or use heavy 50s vinyl motorcycle or use a Mick Jaggeresque Jesus, but the opera cannot support that--nor does it support a realistic treatment. Actually, the safe way to do Jesus Christ Superstar is not to do it at all!"
On the show's sound amplification problems:
"During rehearsals, I tried everything I could think of to balance the sound. Any problems were hardly our fault. Among the other things I inherited when I entered the production picture was the Mark Hellinger Theater, which is somewhat related to a dirigible hangar where sound is concerned.
First, I attempted to cover the orchestra. The conductor had a plastic bowl over him--the idea was to enclose the orchestra and make the pit into a recording studio. But everybody hated it, so they ripped it open before we opened. I asked Stiggie (Robert Stigwood--ed.) for help. He designed a sound system especially for the show. It was top-notch, state-of-the-art...and still didn't work. What it did was take out notes that were over amplified. As a consequence, we ended up with a bland, nothing sound. That went on for two or three weeks of previews. Eventually we all threw up our hands and got another sound guy to put in another sound system, which worked better but was still not right.
And microphones - oh God, microphones. Back when I was doing Superstar and Hair, wireless mikes were almost unknown. We might have used one or two, but everyone else had hand mikes with long cords. As a consequence, my choreography had to be done very carefully. Otherwise, you would weave a basket, which was often the case."
What are your feelings about Andrew Lloyd Webber's comments on your concept?
"The show carried the label 'conceived and directed by Tom O'Horgan,' and I tried to respect it and at the same time involve, not antagonize audiences with magical passages of ideas and feelings. They can complain, I don't care, but it's funny that they say it didn't reflect their ideas when no one came around to offer suggestions, and they never said anything but, 'Nice going; thanks, man, thanks!' The authors took off after rehearsals began and didn't return until we were in previews. This, of course, could be considered a plus factor hovering over their shoulders. It was my show, but when Tim and Andrew were here, the three of us would sit in the mezzanine of the Hellinger and rap while I conducted rehearsals. Whenever they offered suggestions, I would try them out, and some of these were incorporated into the production, and some were not.
That was posted on JCS Zone
Friday, January 2, 2009
Hilton stunt leaves society limping
Tim Costello
January 2, 2009
HOW is it possible that Paris Hilton visits Melbourne for one day to go shopping and makes front-page news? How is it possible that the next day acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Premier John Brumby both meekly thank her for shopping?
As it turned out, Paris bought very little and her shopping spree was a PR stunt. Boutiques were only too happy to hand over as much as she wanted simply for the publicity thrill of having her, her large sunglasses and her entourage cross their threshold.
So, what does this Hilton phenomenon say about us?
Rather than bringing money into our recessed economy, it is clear that Hilton will leave Australia taking much more with her than she spent — a million-dollar appearance fee at a Sydney New Year's Eve bash is rumoured. So how did we all fall for this PR trick?
First, it is clear the media need and feed off Hilton as much as she needs them. Her story and picture dominated the front page of Melbourne's tabloid newspaper on a day when 370 Palestinians died in Gaza and Australia was poised to lose the MCG Test to South Africa.
Clearly Paris sells papers better than deaths and defeats — she's as profitable as a Collingwood football player scandal. But surely the media only respond to public interest? And the public interest in this latest story, besides the presence of thousands of young fans, is that our political leaders are inculcating a new doctrine that shopping is the path to our economic redemption. Hilton is, therefore, an exemplary model of this path to salvation.
The hordes of young people who followed Hilton to Chapel Street to watch her shop and emulate her style indicates that this was a legitimate economic story for troubled times.
But perhaps something more shadowy transpired to create the publicity around this person — ordinary in the extreme but a show-stopper wherever she plants her foot? Something less about economic imperatives and more about a shallow culture that publicises or parodies Hilton as a model of success, mainly serving to give the press more copy. I suspect that she and the media are co-dependent and that their mutual addiction makes for great complicity.
But what does it do to our young people — impressionable and keen to copy the look, the style and the lifestyle of those who get the attention?
We should not judge Hilton personally. She has simply found a mode of marketing that suits this shallow culture that is all of our making. We have known for some time of the illness called celebrity syndrome. It dictates that if you have not seen yourself on television or in a film (because that is real life) then you cannot be sure you exist. The trick is to see or touch a celebrity or, even better, be photographed near someone who has been on the screen to authenticate your existence. And have a few pictures to enhance your Facebook page!
Whether these admiring hordes following Hilton are victims of celebrity syndrome or not, the mass adulation of her as someone famous for being famous leads to a slippery seduction by serious social institutions such as the media and Government.
It reveals our cultural susceptibility to thin stories of glamour and gratification as opposed to thick stories of courage, self-discipline and hope. We have no right to shake our heads in disapproval if our young idealise shopping and fame as the meaning of life when we, from our leaders down, treat it as newsworthy and commendable.
Let's withhold criticism of the young, who are understandably confused and lacking in solid values when we keep changing the message of what is a purpose-driven life.
In these times of financial meltdown, the new economic doctrine has given them a morally equivocal message. It is now virtuous, not questionable, to live lavishly and consume rather than to live generously, save and shop wisely.
We should count the cost of how these thin stories destroy resilience and protective restraints from depression, drug abuse and personal disintegration.
The real role models are the many people who serve the vulnerable, here and overseas, or the many on limited incomes who give generously and at personal sacrifice to make the world a less harsh place. They have planted their feet on solid ethical foundations and live out a value system that recognises that indulgent spending is a moral choice.
They act responsibly, knowing we live in a world suffocating from greenhouse gases through our high-carbon, high-consumption economies. They realise we breathe the same oxygen as 1.4 billion people who live in absolute poverty and never have a chance to put their foot on the bottom rung of the ladder of prosperity that we can climb so effortlessly.
It would be good after Obama's promise of "change we can believe in" to see 2009 as a year for "thick" stories of courage and heroes of hope. It might make up for the fiasco that ended 2008, drummed up around Paris Hilton and a culture that celebrates shallowness.
Tim Costello is chief executive of World Vision.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/hilton-stunt-leaves-society-limping-20090101-78f0.html?page=2
January 2, 2009
HOW is it possible that Paris Hilton visits Melbourne for one day to go shopping and makes front-page news? How is it possible that the next day acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Premier John Brumby both meekly thank her for shopping?
As it turned out, Paris bought very little and her shopping spree was a PR stunt. Boutiques were only too happy to hand over as much as she wanted simply for the publicity thrill of having her, her large sunglasses and her entourage cross their threshold.
So, what does this Hilton phenomenon say about us?
Rather than bringing money into our recessed economy, it is clear that Hilton will leave Australia taking much more with her than she spent — a million-dollar appearance fee at a Sydney New Year's Eve bash is rumoured. So how did we all fall for this PR trick?
First, it is clear the media need and feed off Hilton as much as she needs them. Her story and picture dominated the front page of Melbourne's tabloid newspaper on a day when 370 Palestinians died in Gaza and Australia was poised to lose the MCG Test to South Africa.
Clearly Paris sells papers better than deaths and defeats — she's as profitable as a Collingwood football player scandal. But surely the media only respond to public interest? And the public interest in this latest story, besides the presence of thousands of young fans, is that our political leaders are inculcating a new doctrine that shopping is the path to our economic redemption. Hilton is, therefore, an exemplary model of this path to salvation.
The hordes of young people who followed Hilton to Chapel Street to watch her shop and emulate her style indicates that this was a legitimate economic story for troubled times.
But perhaps something more shadowy transpired to create the publicity around this person — ordinary in the extreme but a show-stopper wherever she plants her foot? Something less about economic imperatives and more about a shallow culture that publicises or parodies Hilton as a model of success, mainly serving to give the press more copy. I suspect that she and the media are co-dependent and that their mutual addiction makes for great complicity.
But what does it do to our young people — impressionable and keen to copy the look, the style and the lifestyle of those who get the attention?
We should not judge Hilton personally. She has simply found a mode of marketing that suits this shallow culture that is all of our making. We have known for some time of the illness called celebrity syndrome. It dictates that if you have not seen yourself on television or in a film (because that is real life) then you cannot be sure you exist. The trick is to see or touch a celebrity or, even better, be photographed near someone who has been on the screen to authenticate your existence. And have a few pictures to enhance your Facebook page!
Whether these admiring hordes following Hilton are victims of celebrity syndrome or not, the mass adulation of her as someone famous for being famous leads to a slippery seduction by serious social institutions such as the media and Government.
It reveals our cultural susceptibility to thin stories of glamour and gratification as opposed to thick stories of courage, self-discipline and hope. We have no right to shake our heads in disapproval if our young idealise shopping and fame as the meaning of life when we, from our leaders down, treat it as newsworthy and commendable.
Let's withhold criticism of the young, who are understandably confused and lacking in solid values when we keep changing the message of what is a purpose-driven life.
In these times of financial meltdown, the new economic doctrine has given them a morally equivocal message. It is now virtuous, not questionable, to live lavishly and consume rather than to live generously, save and shop wisely.
We should count the cost of how these thin stories destroy resilience and protective restraints from depression, drug abuse and personal disintegration.
The real role models are the many people who serve the vulnerable, here and overseas, or the many on limited incomes who give generously and at personal sacrifice to make the world a less harsh place. They have planted their feet on solid ethical foundations and live out a value system that recognises that indulgent spending is a moral choice.
They act responsibly, knowing we live in a world suffocating from greenhouse gases through our high-carbon, high-consumption economies. They realise we breathe the same oxygen as 1.4 billion people who live in absolute poverty and never have a chance to put their foot on the bottom rung of the ladder of prosperity that we can climb so effortlessly.
It would be good after Obama's promise of "change we can believe in" to see 2009 as a year for "thick" stories of courage and heroes of hope. It might make up for the fiasco that ended 2008, drummed up around Paris Hilton and a culture that celebrates shallowness.
Tim Costello is chief executive of World Vision.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/hilton-stunt-leaves-society-limping-20090101-78f0.html?page=2
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Spiderman fights Broadway slump
The comic book hero is due to appear in a new musical just as the recession sweeps through New York’s theatre district
From The Sunday Times
December 14, 2008
Colin Coyle
SPIDERMAN may have met his most formidable foe yet — the Broadway slump. A musical based on the Marvel comic book hero, written by Bono and the Edge from U2, is to take up residency in the Hilton Theatre early next year as the chill wind of recession blows through the theatre district of New York.
Spiderman, reportedly the most expensive show of all time with a budget of €25m, is expected to move into the Hilton after the final curtain falls on the theatre’s current tenant, Young Frankenstein, on January 4. The musical, directed by Mel Brooks, is one of 15 shows closing in the next six weeks, together with Equus, starring Daniel Radcliffe, Grease, Hairspray and Monty Python’s Spamalot. Despite offering discounted tickets, most shows on Broadway have been playing to half-filled houses in recent weeks and only two low-key productions with limited runs — All my Sons, by Arthur Miller, and The Seagull, starring Kristin Scott Thomas — made money this season.
Micah Hollingsworth, general manager of the 1,500-seater Hilton, the theatre where Pirate Queen, produced by Moya Doherty and John McColgan, flopped, said Broadway was “hurting”. He said: “Every industry is suffering and we’re no exception. A lot of shows stay open for Thanksgiving and Christmas and then run out of steam. This year there are just more than normal closing down. Because of the economy, there’s more anxiety around.”
Hollingsworth said that by the time Spiderman opened, there should be a rebound. “From what I hear, it’s an ambitious show and won’t start for some time, so its timing may not be so bad after all,” he said.
Adrian Bryan-Brown, the show’s theatrical agent, said it could open as early as next spring or as late as autumn. “It’s a huge show with very specialised technical needs, so it may take some time to fit out a venue,” he said.
Bryan-Brown said he was “optimistic” that the production would buck the Broadway slump. “It’s not going to be like any other show,” he said. “January and February are always tough on Broadway. This year the seasonal downturn has just been exaggerated by the recession”.
Bono has promised that the show will be “something the likes of which no-one has seen or heard”. He said the music will be part punk rock and part opera. “It should be a hallucinogenic experience for theatregoers,” he said. “You have the visual energy brings. The myth of the arachnid and the elasticity of these characters — you can turn theatre upside down.”
Spiderman may need to demonstrate all his gravity-defying skill, however, to rise above the downturn. Among the big budget productions currently playing, only Billy Elliot is considered a success. A lavish €10m production of A Tale of Two Cities that opened in September was forced to close two months later. To stimulate demand, Disney shows, such as The Lion King and Mary Poppins, are offering a free children’s ticket with every full-price ticket, and other shows are offering discounts to people over 65.
When the $12m (€9m) Pirate Queen closed after three months, it was estimated to have lost $8m. The stakes for Spiderman, with twice the budget, are even greater.
Bryan-Brown says he remains confident. He predicts that Broadway ticket sales will pick up when tourists begin to return to New York next spring. “Broadway is the number one reason why tourists come to New York. Visitor numbers are down but all the expectations are that the industry will pick up. Talk of a Broadway crash is over the top — a lot of the shows that are closing are seasonal attractions and would have been expected to end anyway at this time of year.”
The agent said that details of the cast and production schedule would be released early in the new year. Evan Rachel Wood, a Hollywood actress, has been tipped for the role of Mary Jane Watson, Spiderman’s girlfriend. Bryan-Brown confirmed that she had attended workshops for the part.
Taymor previously directed Wood in Across the Universe, a musical movie inspired by the songs of the Beatles that featured a brief guest appearance from Bono.
She hopes to reunite the actress with her co-star from the film, Jim Sturgess, as Peter Parker and Spiderman.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5337799.ece
From The Sunday Times
December 14, 2008
Colin Coyle
SPIDERMAN may have met his most formidable foe yet — the Broadway slump. A musical based on the Marvel comic book hero, written by Bono and the Edge from U2, is to take up residency in the Hilton Theatre early next year as the chill wind of recession blows through the theatre district of New York.
Spiderman, reportedly the most expensive show of all time with a budget of €25m, is expected to move into the Hilton after the final curtain falls on the theatre’s current tenant, Young Frankenstein, on January 4. The musical, directed by Mel Brooks, is one of 15 shows closing in the next six weeks, together with Equus, starring Daniel Radcliffe, Grease, Hairspray and Monty Python’s Spamalot. Despite offering discounted tickets, most shows on Broadway have been playing to half-filled houses in recent weeks and only two low-key productions with limited runs — All my Sons, by Arthur Miller, and The Seagull, starring Kristin Scott Thomas — made money this season.
Micah Hollingsworth, general manager of the 1,500-seater Hilton, the theatre where Pirate Queen, produced by Moya Doherty and John McColgan, flopped, said Broadway was “hurting”. He said: “Every industry is suffering and we’re no exception. A lot of shows stay open for Thanksgiving and Christmas and then run out of steam. This year there are just more than normal closing down. Because of the economy, there’s more anxiety around.”
Hollingsworth said that by the time Spiderman opened, there should be a rebound. “From what I hear, it’s an ambitious show and won’t start for some time, so its timing may not be so bad after all,” he said.
Adrian Bryan-Brown, the show’s theatrical agent, said it could open as early as next spring or as late as autumn. “It’s a huge show with very specialised technical needs, so it may take some time to fit out a venue,” he said.
Bryan-Brown said he was “optimistic” that the production would buck the Broadway slump. “It’s not going to be like any other show,” he said. “January and February are always tough on Broadway. This year the seasonal downturn has just been exaggerated by the recession”.
Bono has promised that the show will be “something the likes of which no-one has seen or heard”. He said the music will be part punk rock and part opera. “It should be a hallucinogenic experience for theatregoers,” he said. “You have the visual energy brings. The myth of the arachnid and the elasticity of these characters — you can turn theatre upside down.”
Spiderman may need to demonstrate all his gravity-defying skill, however, to rise above the downturn. Among the big budget productions currently playing, only Billy Elliot is considered a success. A lavish €10m production of A Tale of Two Cities that opened in September was forced to close two months later. To stimulate demand, Disney shows, such as The Lion King and Mary Poppins, are offering a free children’s ticket with every full-price ticket, and other shows are offering discounts to people over 65.
When the $12m (€9m) Pirate Queen closed after three months, it was estimated to have lost $8m. The stakes for Spiderman, with twice the budget, are even greater.
Bryan-Brown says he remains confident. He predicts that Broadway ticket sales will pick up when tourists begin to return to New York next spring. “Broadway is the number one reason why tourists come to New York. Visitor numbers are down but all the expectations are that the industry will pick up. Talk of a Broadway crash is over the top — a lot of the shows that are closing are seasonal attractions and would have been expected to end anyway at this time of year.”
The agent said that details of the cast and production schedule would be released early in the new year. Evan Rachel Wood, a Hollywood actress, has been tipped for the role of Mary Jane Watson, Spiderman’s girlfriend. Bryan-Brown confirmed that she had attended workshops for the part.
Taymor previously directed Wood in Across the Universe, a musical movie inspired by the songs of the Beatles that featured a brief guest appearance from Bono.
She hopes to reunite the actress with her co-star from the film, Jim Sturgess, as Peter Parker and Spiderman.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5337799.ece
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
